diana dying pics

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:05 am

heard on the news this morning an italian paper has published pics of princess diana dying, if given the opportunity will you look ? please be honest

ice maiden · Post by **ice maiden** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:25 am

i was working the night diana died, when the first report come in it said she had minor injures, within half an hour they said she was died

although i feel they are things we did not know about that night, i do not think more photos will help, her boys may be princes but they are still her boys why add to they loss by going on about it

Skeeter · Post by **Skeeter** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:34 am

No...too Ghoulish...

Amie · Post by **Amie** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:52 am

Absoloutely. Morbid curiosity. The internet has made me numb to all things morbid and disgusting.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:01 am

Amie wrote: Absoloutely. Morbid curiosity. The internet has made me numb to all things morbid and disgusting.

Fellow sicko here:D yes i would look .

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:12 am

Absolutely not.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:06 am

While it disgusts me that they won't let her rest in peace, I know my morbid curiousity will get the best of me.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:16 am

No, leave it alone, and have consideration of family over money and greed which is why they would publish these pics.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:38 am

I wouldn't look at them.

When I was younger I probably would have.

I don't let my basest instincts take charge of me anymore.

Does that make sense?:-3

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:21 am

I wouldnt want to remember her that way. My Aunt died and she had a closed casket funeral and a huge picture of her smiling as she always did in life. I think thats how I want to go. I dont want my last memory of someone to be after they left their body. Does that make sense?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:38 am

SnoozeControl wrote: I think I've seen them already. They were online several years ago, if they're the same ones I'm thinking of.

Seriously, it was such a mishmash of car and human that you couldn't make anything out. It did reduce me to tears for her though.

That was just her physical body. Her soul left along time ago. She is in a better place now.

Well, any place would be better than to be married to that big eared philandering monkey boy Charles!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:42 am

flopstock wrote: I think it is one thing to make money off of someones happiness and quite another to make it off their misery.

And this is all about making money - No these pictures add nothing to what has happened and I have no interest in them.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:43 am

Those type of pictures wouldn't bother me, but I don't care to see her pictures, I think she needs to be left in peace already!

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:55 am

I would definatly not look.

This reminds me of a television interview I saw with John Kennedy Jr. He was asked if he had seen Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, and if he had an interest in it. Junior had a very classy reply. Do not remember the exact wording, but it was to the effect that that movie was about the death of his FATHER...and NO, he had no interest in seeing it. He then turned it around to the interviewer and said "If it was about your father's death, would you?"

Mongoose · Post by **Mongoose** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:07 am

Oh for goodness sake!! She died 9 years ago! Are the media ever going to leave her alone or are they going to carry on digging her up?!

No I'm not interested in looking at the pictures.

chocoholic · Post by **chocoholic** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:40 am

No, I will not be looking at them if they ever get published here.

People are still making money off of this and I think it's ghoulish.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:03 am

I wont...

poor girl.

Why should something like this be advertised in such a way.....

rather makes me sick

Seems to me like the royal family would be able to restrict such a thing.

Grumpaz · Post by **Grumpaz** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:35 am

I absolutely will NOT look at those pics. I cried my heart out when she passed. Such a lovely lady who life was ended way to soon. Why would anyone want to see them.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:24 am

Mongoose wrote: Oh for goodness sake!! She died 9 years ago! Are the media ever going to leave her alone or are they going to carry on digging her up?!

.

No, she will not be left alone. So long as there are people out there willing to read about her life and her tragic death. Look..they are still bringing up conspiracy theories about the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, and President Kennedy.

If a person dies young, or tragically, all the more media attention. That is sad.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:29 am

Marie5656 wrote:

If a person dies young, or tragically, all the more media attention. That is sad.

If a person dies young, tragically....AND WAS FAMOUS. Otherwise the media doesn't give a rat's ass.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:32 am

BabyRider wrote: If a person dies young, tragically....AND WAS FAMOUS. Otherwise the media doesn't give a rat's ass.

Good point, BR. I do agree.

Elouise · Post by **Elouise** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:29 am

I pronounce individuals passed in my medical occupation. Unfortunately, this is the worst part of the profession, quite unpleasant in most situations.

When looking at death, a sharp pang of finality hits one right in the heart.

Remembrance of the beauty with breath installed due to working lungs, ergo, pink cheeks and eyes that glisten, are far more beautiful and memorable, than imprinting on your brain, death.

ch4rlie · Post by **ch4rlie** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:24 pm

there would be no point in seeing her dead body. it's not the person anymore. its just a body.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:39 pm

No, why can't they just let her RIP!?:-5

(Anything to make the almighty $$$$)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:59 pm

cars wrote: No, why can't they just let her RIP!?:-5

(Anything to make the almighty $$$$)

Yes, I agree....

although, you have to wonder....if there were no one out there willing to buy the garb, would it actually be marketed?

Whos to blame?

I say all who aspire such inhumanity....

Completely unacceptable human behavior on both parts.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:42 pm

Of course I would look. I think most people would.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:10 am

RedGlitter wrote: Of course I would look. I think most people would.

why?

Considering that I have no desire to, I am failing to see the interest.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:43 am

Digressing slightly . . . .

there was a programme on TV last night about Diana's dresses (the ones she auctioned). Apparently a lot of the people who own them are now saying they bring bad luck.

I didn't catch the programme, but it was on Sky so will probably be repeated.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:08 am

buttercup wrote: heard on the news this morning an italian paper has published pics of princess diana dying, if given the opportunity will you look ? please be honest

If they were in the paper, yes. If I had to go hunting for them, or pay (!),

then no. It'd be rather a tasteless, though, wouldn't it - I can think of more

prepossessing things to view than someone in a car crash, in extremis, all

covered in blood & gore and hacked open and bashed about. Snuff?

Gygz · Post by **Gygz** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:03 am

Bill Sikes wrote: If they were in the paper, yes. If I had to go hunting for them, or pay (!),

then no. It'd be rather a tasteless, though, wouldn't it - I can think of more

prepossessing things to view than someone in a car crash, in extremis, all

covered in blood & gore and hacked open and bashed about. Snuff?

Diana died from internal injuries so I doubt if they'll show much of that ..( A surgeon friend of mine saw the autopsy report . she died at the hospital from massive internal bleeding )

And to answer the question .. No thanks.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:04 am

K.Snyder wrote: why?

Considering that I have no desire to, I am failing to see the interest.

Hmm. I'm not sure I can really answer that, K. Matter of fact, I looked at them last night after this conversation, two of them, and they were not hideous. I think it is morbid curiousity mostly, but the fact that it was a famous person adds largely to the factor. Death is the Great Equalizer and maybe those who look want to see how death affected that unfortunate person we thought was above mortality. Does that make any sense?

For what it's worth I liked Diana very much and I don't think my looking at her death photos is any show of disregard, it was only my morbid curiosity....like "Wow, Death got her too." I mean she was a *princess.* She was "untouchable," almost unreal.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:51 pm

RedGlitter wrote:

For what it's worth I liked Diana very much and I don't think my looking at her death photos is any show of disregard,...

It all depends in how one wishes to look at the photos...(it also depends on the integrity of those who market it....as far as intent, I am not quick to condone)

obviously if you wanted to see them to pay your respects, in a way that meant more to you in such a way, I could sympathize.

RedGlitter wrote:

....it was only my morbid curiosity....like "Wow, Death got her too." I mean she was a *princess.* She was "untouchable," almost unreal.

She was a person, just like anyone else....she had feelings, she wanted to love, and be loved......no one goes around wanting to view pictures of ones misfortune with a name foreign to us......she deserves more than to be displayed to the public just because human curiosity cant be tamed. She deserves a humble heart from all those who loved her as a person, not as a princess.

Portia · Post by **Portia** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:20 pm

i saw the photos. i felt sorry for a young life cut short. but i feel sad for the many young people who die in auto accidents every day.

weinbeck · Post by **weinbeck** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:40 pm

Portia wrote: i saw the photos. i felt sorry for a young life cut short. but i feel sad for the many young people who die in auto accidents every day.

You would not believe just how sick and tired people in this country (UK) are of this Diana saga. For MONTHS the Daily Express has run a was Diana murdered/pregnant?/what a swine her butler was to publish books about her private life etc. etc. I am NOT a monarchist - I never have been, and I never will be. This is a classic case of overkill (no pun intended). You cannot open a paper without some "World exclusive!" about the "proof" of how Diana died. People don't even bother reading this c**p - they've had enough of it. It just a waste of four, sometimes six pages which keeps going over the same tired old arguments time and time again. Grief is a VERY private emotion, and should only have affected the immediate members of her family. No doubt I've thrown a brick into a hornet's nest, but somebody had to say it. It's OVER, now let her rest in peace!!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:34 pm

weinbeck wrote: You would not believe just how sick and tired people in this country (UK) are of this Diana saga. For MONTHS the Daily Express has run a was Diana murdered/pregnant?/what a swine her butler was to publish books about her private life etc. etc. I am NOT a monarchist - I never have been, and I never will be. This is a classic case of overkill (no pun intended). You cannot open a paper without some "World exclusive!" about the "proof" of how Diana died. People don't even bother reading this c**p - they've had enough of it. It just a waste of four, sometimes six pages which keeps going over the same tired old arguments time and time again. Grief is a VERY private emotion, and should only have affected the immediate members of her family. No doubt I've thrown a brick into a hornet's nest, but somebody had to say it. It's OVER, now let her rest in peace!!

I wouldn't know how the UK feels about it, but America has a fascination with her and has since the televised wedding. If she hadn't been so human and approachable maybe we wouldn't feel this way. But even non UKers "loved" her. I put that in quotes for obvious reasons. We got to watch her evolve from a shy almost-teenager into a graceful compassionate woman. We watched her do good for the world even though her family treated her like crap. I don't think the UK understands why the US was so intrigued by her and generally speaking, we are fascinated -and often disgusted- by the whole royal family. Myself, I haven't read her butler's book nor do I expect I will. I haven't read any Diana books actually and there certainly is a glut of them. Diana is like Elvis: the whole world felt her death and mourned her and her death was handled poorly and her memory often still is as well but to expect people to "get over it" falls on deaf ears because it's human nature to continue to be curious about what killed such a good person.

Screamer · Post by **Screamer** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:39 pm

I agree with everyone who said that their morbid curiosity would get the best of them. I would look as well.

You all (who said you wouldn't look) what did you expect when you opened this thread?